financial statement analysis cvp contractors

8/3/2019 Financial Statement Analysis CVP Contractors

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/financial-statement-analysis-cvp-contractors 1/40

ENTRIX, Inc. 1

Financial Statement Analysis of CVP Contractors

DRAFT

Prepared for:

John Kirlin

Delta Vision

Resources Building

1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311/

Sacramento CA 95814

By

ENTRIX, Inc.

701 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento CA 95825

July 20, 2008



ENTRIX, Inc. i

Table of Contents

Financial Statement Analysis of CVP Contractors 1

Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Financial Statement Background ..................................................................................................... 2

The Ten Largest CVP Irrigation Contractors in the San Joaquin Valley ............................................... 2

Westlands Water District ................................................................................................................. 3

Madera Irrigation District ................................................................................................................ 6

Lower Tule River Irrigation District................................................................................................ 8

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District............................................................................................. 10

Delano Earlimart Irrigation District............................................................................................... 12 Chowchilla Water District ............................................................................................................. 14

Southern San Joaquin Municipal Utility District........................................................................... 16

Tulare Irrigation District ................................................................................................................ 18

Del Puerto Water District............................................................................................................... 20

San Luis Water District.................................................................................................................. 22

Comparison of the Ten Contractors ..................................................................................................... 24

Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................... 26



ENTRIX, Inc. 1

Financial Statement Analysis of CVP Contractors

This report provides an analysis of the condensed financial statements of the 10 largest

Central Valley Project (CVP) irrigation contractors in the San Joaquin Valley (Valley). The

10 were selected because of their size measured by CVP water deliveries, relative to bothaggregate CVP deliveries in the Valley and for all of California. The report includes, for

those contractors, a summary of those financial statements for eight years,1 respective net

capital repayment obligations, and acre-feet (AF) of water delivered.2 This is the third of

several written reports which ENTRIX will complete relative to CVP Financing and

Repayment Issues. Subsequent reports will include an analysis and discussion of the

generation and distribution of hydroelectric power from CVP facilities and a comprehensive

document summarizing revised forms of all reports submitted.

Background

The CVP is the largest surface water storage and delivery system in California and is also the

largest irrigation water supply project constructed and operated by U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation (Reclamation). It includes 20 reservoirs, with a combined storage capacity of

approximately 11 million AF; eight power plants and two pumping-generating plants with a

combined capacity of approximately two million kilowatts; two pumping plants; and

approximately 500 miles of major canals and aqueducts. The CVP supplies water to more

1 From the Special Districts Annual Report , published by the California State Controller’s office. A complete setof the audited financial statements for the individual districts was not available.

2 Projected deliveries for 2007, taken from United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,Mid-Pacific Regional Office, “Schedule of Historical (1981-2006) & Projected (2007-2030) Irrigation WaterDeliveries For Calculation of Individual Contractor Prorated Capital Costs,” Irrigation, 2008 Schedule A-14(accessed July 15, 2008).



ENTRIX, Inc. 2

than 250 long term water contractors in the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, and the

Santa Clara Valley.3

Financial Statement Background

The financial statements of California’s public water agencies are generally developed using

fund concepts following the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Condensed

financial statements are published by the California State Controller in the “Special Districts

Annual Report.” Reports are compiled from standardized documents utilizing accounting

and reporting procedures in accordance with the Uniform Accounting Systems of Special

Districts, prescribed in Section 1113.1 of the California Code of Regulations. The financial

statements are based on a fiscal year beginning July 1st and ending June 30th. The most recent

report was published in March 2008 and contains data for FY 2005-06.4 The earliest available

report including detailed financial information for special districts is for FY 1999-98.

The Ten Largest CVP Irrigation Contractors in the San Joaquin Valley

This section includes a review of the condensed financial information for the largest ten CVP

irrigation contractors in the Valley. The contractors and information on their respective 2007

CVP deliveries are shown in Table 1. In the financial review for the period from 1998-1999

through 2005-2006, the focus was on the largest sources of revenue and expenses, as well as

on operating and non-operating net incomes. The analysis also includes an examination of

trends for the contractors.

Collectively, the 10 irrigation contractors shown in Table 1 received over 1.8 million AF of

CVP water in 2007, representing 77.5 percent of CVP water for the Valley. The 1.8 million

AF also accounted for 51.5 percent of all 2007 CVP water deliveries5.

3 United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, May 2001,“CVP Cost Allocation Study,” Final Report, Sacramento.

4 In some cases the actual reports of water agencies are on a calendar year basis and the Special District reportsdata in the fiscal year.

5 Excluding water deliveries for the Delta-Mendota Exchange Contractors.



ENTRIX, Inc. 3

Table 1Largest San Joaquin Valley CVP Contractors Based Upon 2007 Projected

Water Deliveries

ContractorProjected Acre-Feet

DeliveredPercentage of San

Joaquin CVP Water

Westlands Water District 701,134 30.0%

Madera Irrigation District 176,103 7.5%

Lower Tule River Irrigation District 160,450 6.9%

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District 159,271 6.8%

Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District 131,953 5.6%

Chowchilla Water District 131,175 5.6%

Southern San Joaquin Municipal UtilityDistrict 111,315 4.8%

Tulare Irrigation District 83,763 3.6%

Del Puerto Water District 82,712 3.5%

San Luis Water District 73,325 3.1%

Top Ten Total 1,811,201 77.5%

Source: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific RegionalOffice, “Schedule of Historical (1981-2006) & Projected (2007-2030) Irrigation Water Deliveries ForCalculation of Individual Contractor Prorated Capital Costs,” Irrigation, 2008 Schedule A-14(accessed July 15, 2008).

Westlands Water District

Westlands Water District (Westlands) is the largest CVP water user in the Valley and

receives water by the San Luis Canal. In 2007, its projected water delivery was 701,134 AF;

accounting for 30.0 percent of total water for the Valley. Among the 10 districts, Westlands

carries the greatest amount of long-term debt. Total outstanding long-term debt in at the end

of FY 2005-2006 was nearly $190 million; representing 75 percent of the total long-term debt

among the ten contractors.6 Westlands also owed $54.3 million in construction costs

financed by the Federal and State government in FY 2005-2006, accounting for 83.4 percent

of the total for the agencies. The net capital cost allocated to Westland irrigation contractors

for CVP repayment was $373.7 million in 2008.7

6 See Appendix A, Table A.1




ENTRIX, Inc. 4

Table 2 shows operating and non-operating income for Westlands from FY 1998-1999 to

2005-2006. The largest source of operating revenue has consistently been irrigation water

sales, averaging 94.3 percent of the total. Other revenue sources are water services8

averaging 3.2 percent and others/miscellaneous, averaging 2.5 percent. The largest operating

expense is source of supply, averaging 72.3 percent. Transmission and distribution averaged

9.6 percent; all other averaged 9.4 percent; and administration and general averaged 8.7

percent.

Between FY 1998-1999 and FY 2005-2006, operating revenue from irrigation water sales

increased 65.2 percent, while that from Water Services declined 7.7 percent and other

operating revenue increased 63.2 percent. Total operating revenue increased 63.1 percent.

Among operating expenses, administrative and general and source of supply increased 68.1

and 65.2 percent, respectively. Operating expenses for Transmission and Distribution

decreased 5.2 percent, and all other expenses increased 91.1 percent. Total operating

expenses increased 62.2 percent.

8 Water services may include services such as ground water recharge, water for fire services, and others.



ENTRIX, Inc. 5

Table 2Westlands Water District Financial Statement Review,

FY 1998-99 to FY 2005-06

Average AnnualComposition

Percent Change FY 98-99 -FY 2005-06

Operating Revenues

Water Sales

Irrigation 94.3% 65.2%

Water Services 3.2% -7.7%

All Other 2.5% 63.2%

Total Operating Revenues 100.0% 63.1%

Operating Expenses

Source of Supply 72.3% 65.2%

Administration and General 8.7% 68.1%

Transmission and Distribution 9.6% -5.2%


Total Operating Expenses 100.0% 62.2%

Non-Operating Revenues Interest Income 17.5% 198.2%

Property Assessments 58.5% 351.1%

All Other 24.0% -81.6%

Total Non-Operating Revenues 100.0% -81.6%

Non-Operating Expenses

Interest Expenses 98.1% 3,270.7% All Other 1.9% -100.0%

Total Non-Operating Expenses 100.0% 2,109.7%

Over the eight years, the largest sources of non-operating revenue for Westlands were

property assessments, averaging 58.5 percent, followed by interest income averaging 17.5

percent, and others averaging 24.0 percent. The largest non-operating expense over the same

period was for interest, averaging 98.1 percent.



ENTRIX, Inc. 6

Interest income increased 198.2 percent, property assessments increased 351.1 percent, and

other non-operating revenues decreased 81.6 percent. Total non-operating revenues

decreased 81.6 percent. Total interest expense increased 3,270.7 percent9 and all other non-

operating expenses decreased 100.0 percent. Total non-operating expenses decreased 2,109.7

percent.

Madera Irrigation District

Madera Irrigation District (Madera) is the second largest recipient of CVP water in the Valley

and receives water by the Madera Canal. In 2007, its projected water delivery was 176,103

AF, accounting for 7.5 percent of total water for the Valley. Madera also carried the second

largest amount of long-term debt. Total outstanding long-term debt at the end of FY 2005-

2006 was $47.9 million, 18.9 percent of the 10 Valley contractors.10 Madera also owed $1.9

million in construction costs financed by the Federal and State government in FY 2005-2006,

accounting for 3.0 percent of the total for the 10 contractors. The net capital cost allocated toMadera irrigation contractors for CVP repayment was $33.8 million in 2008.11

As shown in Table 3, Madera’s largest sources of operating revenue for the eight years were

irrigation water sales, averaging 58.9 percent; water services, averaging 37.9 percent; and

others, averaging 3.2 percent. Madera’s largest operating expenses over the same period

were source of supply, averaging 51.3 percent; transmission and distribution, averaging 20.9

percent; administration and general, averaging 17.1 percent; and others, averaging 10.7

percent.

9 Interest expense increased because Westlands issued long-term debt of more than $222 million between 1999and 2005. See California State Controller, 2008, Special Districts Annual Report , Sacramento, Table 14.





ENTRIX, Inc. 7

Table 3Madera Irrigation District Financial Statement Review, FY 1998-1999 to FY

2005-2006


Percent Change FY 98-99 - FY2005-06

Operating Revenues


Water Services 37.9% 118.8

All Other 3.2% -57.7%

Total Operating Revenues 100.0% 107.7

Operating Expenses



Transmission and Distribution 20.9% 2.7%

All Other 10.7% 71.2%


Non-Operating Revenues

Interest Income 10.9% -4.2%

Property Assessments 55.8% -100%

Other Non-Operating Revenues 33.3% -12.6



Interest Expenses 66.6% 2,509.2%

Other Non-Operating Expenses 33.4% 51.0%

Total Non-Operating Expenses 100.0% 3,256.9%

From FY 1998-1999 to FY 2005-2006 operating revenue increased 118.8 percent from water

services, while irrigation water sales increased 115.3 percent and other decreased 57.7

percent. Overall, total operating revenue increased 107.7 percent. Among operating

expenses, other/miscellaneous increased 71.2 percent, administration and general increased

62.5 percent, and transmission and distribution increased 2.7 percent. Total operating




ENTRIX, Inc. 8

The largest sources of non-operating revenue for Madera were property assessments,

averaging 55.8 percent; other, averaging 33.3 percent; and interest income, averaging 10.9

percent. Madera’s largest sources of non-operating expenses over the same period were

interest expense, averaging 66.6 percent; and other, averaging 33.4 percent.

Over the eight years, non-operating revenue from property assessments decreased 100.0

percent, others decreased 12.6 percent and interest decreased 4.2 percent. Total non-

operating revenues decreased 69.1 percent. Non-operating expenses increased 3,256.9

percent. Interest expense rose 2,509.2 percent12 and other expense increased 51.0 percent..

Lower Tule River Irrigation District

Lower Tule River Irrigation District (Lower Tule) is the third largest recipient of CVP water

in the Valley and receives water from the Friant-Kern and Cross Valley Canals. In 2007, its

projected water delivery was 160,450 AF, accounting for 6.9 percent of total water for theValley. Among the 10 contractors, Lower Tule carries the least long-term debt. Total

outstanding long-term debt at the end of FY 2005-2006 was $305,000. Moreover, in contrast

to other contractors, Lower Tule does not owe the United States or California for construction

costs.13 The net capital cost allocated to Lower Tule irrigation contractors for CVP

repayment was $27.5 million in 2008.14

As shown in Table 4, the largest sources of operating revenue over the eight years were


others, averaging 2.6 percent. The largest sources of operating expenses were source of

supply, averaging 69.1 percent; administration and general, averaging 17.6 percent;

transmission and distribution, averaging 11.5 percent; and others, averaging 2.6 percent.


increased 209.6 percent and water services decreased 17.4 percent; other water revenues fell

100 percent. Overall, total operating revenue increased 181.2 percent. Among operating

expenses, source of supply increased 149.9 percent, administration and general increased 55.3

percent, other increased 51.2 percent, and transmission and distribution increased 2.2 percent.

Overall, total operating expenses increased 101.6 percent.

12 Interest expense increased because Madera issued more than $47 million of long-term debt in 2005. SeeCalifornia State Controller, 2008, Special Districts Annual Report , Sacramento, Table 14.





ENTRIX, Inc. 9

Table 4Lower Tule River Irrigation District Financial Statement Review, FY 1998-1999

to FY 2005-2006

Average Annual CompositionPercent Change FY 98-99 - FY

2005-06

Operating Revenues



All Other 2.6% -100%


Operating Expenses








Property Assessments 86.2% -0.2%




Interest Expenses 13.6% 64.4%

All Other 86.4% -100%

Total Non-Operating Expenses 100.0% -96.8%

As shown in Table 4, the largest sources of non-operating income were property assessments,averaging 86.2 percent; other, averaging 7.1 percent; and interest, averaging 6.7 percent.

Among non-operating expenses, the largest sources were other, averaging 86.4 percent, and

interest, averaging 13.6 percent.

Between FY 1998-1999 and FY 2005-2006, non-operating revenue from interest decreased

69.1 percent, others decreased 27.1 percent, and property assessments decreased 0.2 percent.



ENTRIX, Inc. 10

Overall, total non-operating revenues decreased 7.5 percent. Among non-operating expenses,

interest increased 64.4 percent and other decreased 100.0 percent. Overall, total non-

operating expenses decreased 96.8 percent.

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District (Arvin-Edison) is the fourth largest recipient of CVP

water in the Valley and receives water from the Friant-Kern Canal. In 2007, its projected

water delivery was 159,271 AF, accounting for 6.8 percent of total water for the Valley.

Total outstanding long-term debt at the end of FY 2005-2006 was $10.2 million, representing

4.0 percent of the total long-term debt among 10 contractors.15 Arvin-Edison also owed $4.1

million in construction costs financed by the United States and California. The net capital

cost allocated to Arvin-Edison for CVP repayment was $24.6 million in 2008.16

As shown in Table 5, the largest source of operating revenue for the eight years was irrigationwater sales, averaging 55.0 percent. Water services averaged 42.3 percent, and others

averaged 2.7 percent. The largest operating expenses over the same period were source of

supply, averaging 46.4 percent; transmission and distribution, averaging 25.5 percent; others,

averaging 14.8 percent; and administration and general expenses, averaging 13.3 percent.





ENTRIX, Inc. 11

Table 5Arvin-Edison Water Storage District Financial Statement Review, FY 1998-1999

to FY 2005-2006


Percent Change FY 98-99 -FY 2005-06

Operating Revenues

Water Sales



All Other 2.7% -81.1%

Total Operating Revenues 100.0% -20.2%

Operating Expenses




All Other 14.8% 104.9%





All Other 32.7% 189.1%



Interest Expenses 30.4% 2,939.0%

All Other 69.6% -100.0%

Total Non-Operating Expenses 100.0% -2,752.4%

Over the eight years, operating revenue from irrigation water sales increased 39.7 percent.

Operating revenue from water services declined 77.5 percent, and other operating revenue

decreased 81.1 percent. Overall, total operating revenue decreased 20.2 percent. Among

operating expenses, transmission and distribution increased 214.6 percent, source of supply

increased 115.3 percent, others increased 104.9 percent, and administrative and general

increased 86.7 percent. Total operating expenses increased 135.6 percent.



ENTRIX, Inc. 12

The largest sources of non-operating revenue over the eight years were property assessments,

averaging 44.0 percent; other, averaging 32.7 percent; and interest income, averaging 23.3

percent. The principal non-operating expenses over the eight years were other, averaging

69.9 percent; and interest expense, averaging 30.4 percent.

Non-operating revenue from other increased 189.1 percent, interest income decreased 68.1

percent, and property assessments increased 2.3 percent. Total non-operating revenues

decreased 8.5 percent. Non-operating expenses rose 2,752.4 percent. Interest expense

increased 2,939 percent17 and other decreased 100.0 percent.

Delano Earlimart Irrigation District Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District (Delano-Earlimart) is the fifth largest recipient of CVP

water in the Valley and receives water from the Friant-Kern Canal. In 2007, its projected

water delivery was 131,953 AF, accounting for 5.6 percent of total water for the Valley.Among the ten contractors, Delano-Earlimart carried the second lowest amount of long-term

debt. Total outstanding long-term debt at the end of FY 2005-2006 was $1,871,392. Delano-

Earlimart does not owe the United States or California government for construction costs.18

The net capital cost allocated to Delano-Earlimart irrigation contractors for CVP repayment

was $29.2 million in 2008.19

As shown in Table 6, Delano-Earlimart’s largest sources of operating revenue for the eight

years were irrigation water sales, averaging 58.9 percent; water services, averaging 33.2

percent; and others, averaging 7.9 percent. The largest sources of operating expenses were

source of supply, averaging 76.5 percent; administration and general, averaging 12.2 percent;

transmission and distribution, averaging 6.2 percent; and others, averaging 5.1 percent.

Between FY 1998-1999 and FY 2005-2006, operating revenue from water service increased

454.3 percent, irrigation water sales increased 117.0 percent, and other decreased 69.4

percent. Total operating revenue increased 199.0 percent. Among operating expenses,

source of supply increased 165.4 percent, administration and general increased 61.8 percent,

other decreased 47.5 percent, and transmission and distribution decreased 30.0 percent. Total

operating expenses increased 69.8 percent.

17 Interest expense increased because Arvin-Edison issued more than $10 million of long-term debt in 2005-2006.See California State Controller, 2008, Special Districts Annual Report , Sacramento, Table 14.





ENTRIX, Inc. 13

Table 6Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District Financial Statement Review, FY 1998-1999

to FY 2005-2006


2005-06

Operating Revenues


Water Services 33.2% 454.3%

All Other 7.9% -69.4%


Operating Expenses




All Other 5.1% -47.5%




Property Assessments 49.5% -100.0%

All Other 21.3% 423.6%




All Other 9.3% -100.0%

Total Non-Operating Expenses 100.0% 284.2%

Over the eight years, the largest sources of non-operating revenue were property assessments,averaging 49.5 percent; interest, averaging 29.2 percent, and other, averaging 21.3 percent.

The largest sources of non-operating expenses were interest, averaging 90.7 percent and

other, averaging 9.3 percent.

Over the eight years, non-operating revenues from other increased 423.6 percent, property

assessments decreased 100.0 percent, and interest decreased 29.6 percent. Total non-



ENTRIX, Inc. 14

operating revenues decreased 82.3 percent. Among non-operating expenses, interest

increased 721.1 percent20 and other decreased 100.0 percent. Overall, total non-operating


Chowchilla Water District

Chowchilla Water District (Chowchilla) is the sixth largest recipient of CVP water in the

Valley and receives water from the Madera Canal. In 2007, its projected water delivery was

131,175 AF, accounting for 5.6 percent of total water for the Valley. Chowchilla did not

carry any long-term debt nor does it owe the United States or California government for

construction costs.21 The net capital cost allocated to Chowchilla irrigation contractors for

CVP repayment was $23.7 million in 2008.22

As shown in Table 7, the largest sources of operating revenue for the eight years were

irrigation water sales, averaging 98.4 percent; and others averaging 1.6 percent. The largestsources of operating expenses were source of supply, averaging 64.6 percent; transmission

and distribution, averaging 13.1 percent; administration and general, averaging 12.7 percent;

and others, averaging 9.6 percent.

Between FY 1998-1999 and FY 2005-2006, irrigation water sales increased 57.4 percent and

total operating revenue increased 58.5 percent. Operating expenses increased 121 percent,

with source of supply increasing 196.4 percent, transmission and distribution increasing 76.5

percent, administration and general rising 43.6 percent, and other rising 18.6 percent.

20 Interest expense increased because Delano-Earlimart issued more than $3.0 million of long-term debt in 2005-2006. See California State Controller, 2008, Special Districts Annual Report , Sacramento, Table 14.





ENTRIX, Inc. 15

Table 7Chowchilla Water District Financial Statement Review, FY 1998-1999 to FY

2005-2006


2005-06

Operating Revenues


All Other 1.6% 0.0%


Operating Expenses









All Other 11.5% 204.1%

Total Non-Operating Revenues 100.0% 67.3%



All Other 99.7% -100.0%


Over the eight years, the largest sources of non-operating revenue were property assessments,

averaging 65.6 percent; other, averaging 11.5 percent; and interest, averaging 8.7 percent.The largest sources of non-operating expenses were other, averaging 99.7 percent and

interest, averaging 0.3 percent.

Non-operating revenue from other increased 204.1 percent, property assessments increased

65.6 percent, and interest income decreased 57.5 percent. Total non-operating revenues



ENTRIX, Inc. 16

increased 67.3 percent. Non-operating expenses from other decreased 100.0 percent. Total

non-operating expenses decreased 100.0 percent.

Southern San Joaquin Municipal Utility District

Southern San Joaquin Municipal Utility District (S. San Joaquin) is the seventh largest

recipient of CVP water in the Valley and receives water from the Friant-Kern Canal. In

2007, its projected water delivery was 111,315 AF, accounting for 4.8 percent of the total

water for the Valley. S. San Joaquin carries no long-term debt, nor does it owe the United

States or California government for construction costs.23 The net capital costs allocated to

the district for CVP repayment was $26.8 million in 2008.24

As shown in Table 8, the largest average sources of operating revenue for the eight years

were irrigation water sales, averaging 68.0 percent; and water services, averaging 32.0

percent. The largest sources of operating expenses were source of supply, averaging 63.8percent; others, averaging 12.9 percent; pumping, averaging 12.7 percent; and administration

and general, averaging 10.6 percent.

Over the eight years, operating revenue from irrigation water sales increased 47.7 percent and

water services increased 37.1 percent. Total operating revenue increased 44.1 percent.

Operating expenses for pumping increased 141.1 percent, source of supply increased 96.9

percent, administration and general increased 75.3 percent, and other increased 40.4 percent.

Total operating expenses increased 80.6 percent.





ENTRIX, Inc. 17

Table 8Southern San Joaquin Municipal Utility District Financial Statement Review, FY

1998-1999 to FY 2005-2006


2005-06

Operating Revenues




Operating Expenses


Pumping 12.7% 141.1%Administration and General 10.6% 75.3%

All Other 12.9% 40.4%



Interest Income 16.8% 46.6%

Current and Unsecured Debt (1%) 25.0% 76.9%

Property Assessments 5.2% 0%All Other 53.0% 229.7%



All Other 100.0% -100.0%


As shown in Table 8, the largest sources of non-operating revenue were other, averaging 53.0

percent; current and unsecured debt, averaging 25.0 percent; interest, averaging 16.8 percent;

and property assessments, averaging 5.2 percent. The largest sources of non-operating

expenses were others, averaging 100.0 percent.

Between FY 1998-1999 and FY 2005-2006, non-operating revenue from other increased

229.7 percent, current and unsecured debt increased 76.9 percent, and interest increased 46.6



ENTRIX, Inc. 18

percent. Overall, total non-operating revenues increased 183.7 percent. Overall, total non-

operating expenses decreased 100.0 percent.

Tulare Irrigation District

Tulare Irrigation District (Tulare) is the eighth largest recipient of CVP water in the Valley

and receives water from the Friant-Kern Canal. In 2007, its projected water delivery was

83,763 AF, accounting for 3.6 percent of total water for the Valley. Total outstanding long-

term debt at the end of FY2005-2006 was $3.1 million, but Tulare does not owe the United

States or California government for construction costs.25 The net capital cost allocated to the

district for CVP repayment was $13.0 million in 2008.26

As shown in Table 9, the largest sources of operating revenue for the eight years were


other averaging 5.4 percent. The largest sources of operating expenses were source of supply, averaging 38.3 percent; other, averaging 23.3 percent; administration and general,

averaging 23.2 percent; and transmission and distribution, averaging 15.2 percent.

Between FY 1998-1999 and FY 2005-2006, operating revenue from water services increased

1,172.9 percent and irrigation water sales increased 198.5 percent. Overall, total operating

revenue increased 303.6 percent. Administration and General operating expenses increased

227.2 percent, other increased 218.9 percent, source of supply increased 160.0 percent, and

transmission and distribution decreased 28.0 percent. Overall, total operating expenses

increased 136.1 percent.





ENTRIX, Inc. 19

Table 9Tulare Irrigation District Financial Statement Review, FY 1998-1999 to FY 2005-

2006


2005-06

Operating Revenues


Water Services 20.3% 1,172.9%

All Other 5.4% 0%


Operating Expenses

Source of Supply 38.3% 160.0%Administration and General 23.2% 227.2%


All Other 23.3% 218.9%




Property Assessments 46.2% -4.7%All Other 27.6% -75.1%



Interest Expense 31.8% -39.7%

All Other 68.2% -99.3%


Over the eight years, the largest sources of non-operating revenue were from property

assessments, averaging 46.2 percent; other, averaging 27.6 percent; and interest, averaging

26.1 percent. The largest sources of non-operating expenses were others, averaging 68.2

percent and interest, averaging 31.8 percent.

Between FY 1998-1999 and FY 2005-2006, non-operating interest income decreased 89.8

percent, other decreased 75.1 percent, and property assessments decreased 4.7 percent. Non-



ENTRIX, Inc. 20

operating expenses from other decreased 99.3 percent and interest decreased 39.7 percent.

Overall, total non-operating expenses decreased 31.1 percent.

Del Puerto Water District

Del Puerto Water District (Del Puerto) is the ninth largest recipient of CVP water in the

Valley and receives water from the Delta-Mendota Canal. In 2007, its projected water

delivery was 82,712 AF, accounting for 3.5 percent of total water for the Valley. At the end

of FY2005-2006, Del Puerto carried no long-term debt, but owes the United States or

California government $3.5 million for construction costs.27 The net capital costs allocated

to the district for CVP repayment was $26.9 million in 2008.28

As shown in Table 10, the largest sources of operating revenues were irrigation water sales,

averaging 87.1 percent; and water services averaging 12.9 percent. The largest sources of

operating expenses were source of supply, averaging 85.0 percent; administration andgeneral, averaging 14.8 percent; and depreciation and amortization, averaging 0.2 percent.


increased 1.8 percent and water services decreased 0.7 percent. Overall, total operating

revenue increased 1.5 percent. Among operating expenses, depreciation and amortization

increased 480.1 percent, source of supply increased 59.6 percent, and administration and

general increased 32.2 percent. Overall, total operating expenses increased 55.9 percent.





ENTRIX, Inc. 21

Table 10Del Puerto Water District Financial Statement Review, FY 1998-1999 to FY

2005-2006


2005-06

Operating Revenues




Operating Expenses


Administration and General 14.8% 32.2%Depreciation and Amortization 0.2% 480.1%




All Other 16.2% 340.9%



Interest Expense 68.4% 22.7%

All Other 31.6% -100.0%


Over the eight years, the largest sources of non-operating revenue were interest, averaging

83.8 percent; and other, averaging 16.2 percent. The largest sources of non-operating

expenses were interest, averaging 68.4 percent; and other, averaging 31.6 percent.

Between FY 1998-1999 and FY 2005-2006, non-operating revenue from other increased

340.9 percent and interest increased 4.1 percent. Overall, total non-operating revenues

increased 38.3 percent. Non-operating expenses from other decreased 100.0 percent and

interest increased 22.7 percent. Overall, total non-operating expenses decreased 26.0 percent.



ENTRIX, Inc. 22

San Luis Water District

San Luis Water District (San Luis) is the tenth largest recipient of CVP water in the Valley

and receives water from the Delta-Mendota and San Luis Canals. In 2007, its projected water

delivery was 73,325 AF, accounting for 3.1 percent of the total water for the Valley. At the

end of FY2005-2006, San Luis carried $5.7 million in long-term debt and owes the United

States or California government $4.2 million for construction costs.29 The net capital cost

allocated to the district for CVP repayment was over $46.4 million in 2008.30

As shown in Table 11, the largest sources of operating revenue for the district over the eight

fiscal years were irrigation water sales, averaging 83.0 percent; water services, averaging

16.2 percent; and other, averaging 0.7 percent. The largest sources of operating expenses

were source of supply, averaging 62.4 percent; administration and general, averaging 14.1

percent; transmission and distribution, averaging 12.2 percent; and other, averaging 11.3

percent.

Between FY 1998-1999 and FY 2005-2006, other operating revenue increased 190.9 percent,

irrigation water sales increased 26.9 percent, and water services increased 9.3 percent.

Overall, total operating revenue increased 64.1 percent. Among operating expenses, source

of supply increased 41.8 percent, administration and general decreased 28.3 percent,

transmission and distribution increased 22.0 percent; and other decreased 18.3 percent.

Overall, total operating expenses increased 17.7 percent.





ENTRIX, Inc. 23

Table 11San Luis Water District Financial Statement Review, FY 1998-1999 to FY 2005-

2006


2005-06

Operating Revenues



Other 0.7% 190.9%


Operating Expenses

Source of Supply 62.4% 41.8%Administration and General 14.1% -28.3%


Other 11.3% -18.3%




Property Assessments 57.0% 2.3%All Other 18.8% -98.9%



Interest Expense 70.3% -38.8%

All Other 29.7% -424.1%


As shown in Table 11, the largest sources of non-operating revenue were from property

assessments, averaging 57.0 percent; interest, averaging 24.2 percent; and other, averaging

18.8. The largest sources of non-operating expenses were interest, averaging 70.3 percent;

and others, averaging 29.7 percent. Overall, total non-operating revenues decreased 51.5

percent.



ENTRIX, Inc. 24

Between FY 1998-1999 and FY 2005-2006, non-operating expenses from other decreased

424.1 percent and interest decreased 38.8 percent. Overall, total non-operating expenses

decreased 7.8 percent.

Comparison of the Ten Contractors

Collectively, the 10 irrigation contractors shown in Table 12 received over 1.8 million AF of

CVP water in 2007, representing 77.5 percent of CVP water for the Valley. The 1.8 million

AF was 51.5 percent of all 2007 CVP water deliveries31. The three largest water contractors

in the Valley were Westlands, Madera, and Lower Tule, receiving 701,000, 176,000, and

160,000 AF, respectively, of CVP water in 2007. The three contractors with the greatest

CVP capital cost repayment obligations are Westlands, San Luis, and Madera owing $373.7,

$46.4, and $33.8 million respectively.

Among the 10 contractors, all but two had negative operating incomes. The three contractors

with the highest average operating income were San Luis, Del Puerto, and S. San Joaquin

netting $3.9, $3.3, and $-1.4 million respectively. The three contractors with the lowest

average operating income were Westlands, Arvin-Edison, and Tulare, netting $-23.8, $-20.2,

and $-18.4 million respectively.

Of the 10 contractors, all had positive non-operating and net incomes. Contractors with the

highest average non-operating incomes were Westlands, averaging $55.6 million; Arvin-

Edison, averaging $36.3 million; and Tulare, averaging $34.6 million. Contractors with the

lowest average non-operating incomes were Del Puerto, S. San Joaquin, and Delano-Earlimart, averaging $969,000, $7.2 million, and $9.3 million respectively. The highest

average net incomes were for Westlands, San Luis, and Arvin-Edison, averaging $32.7,

$19.5, and $16.2 million, respectively. The lowest average net incomes were for Madera,

Chowchilla, and Lower Tule, averaging $13,500, $1.5 million, and $2.8 million respectively.

31 Water deliveries do not include water for the Delta-Mendota Exchange Contractors.



ENTRIX, Inc. 25

Table 12Comparison of the Largest Irrigation Contractors in the San Joaquin Valley

WaterDistrict

ProjectedWater

Deliveries1

(Acre-Feet)CVP Repayment

Obligation2

AverageOperatingIncome

3

Average Non-OperatingIncome

4

Average NetIncome

5

Arvin-Edison 159,271 $24,594,454 $ (20,163,165) $36,343,853 $16,180,688

Chowchilla 131,175 $23,680,986 $ (17,707,247) $19,168,254 $1,461,007

Del Puerto 82,712 $26,918,979 $3,342,353 $969,736 $4,312,089

Delano-Earlimart 131,953 $29,239,005 $ (3,297,103) $9,252,077 $5,954,974

LowerTule 160,450 $27,534,146 $ (13,426,383) $16,204,348 $2,777,965

Madera 176,103 $33,811,684 $ (14,939,519) $14,952,999 $13,480

San Luis 73,325 $46,361,200 $3,908,755 $15,571,088 $19,479,843

SouthJoaquin 111,315 $26,795,785 $ (1,415,532) $7,176,600 $5,761,068

Tulare 83,763 $13,042,648 $ (18,438,071) $34,593,004 $16,154,933

Westlands 701,134 $373,773,467 $ (23,864,158) $56,555,467 $32,691,309

Total 1,811,201 $625,752,354 $ (106,000,070) $210,787,426 $104,787,356

1/ Water deliveries for 2007

2/ Repayment obligation as of 20083/ Average of fiscal years 2005-2006 through 1998-1999

4/ Average of fiscal years 2005-2006 through 1998-1999

5/ Average of fiscal years 2005-2006 through 1998-1999



ENTRIX, Inc. 26

Appendix A

Table A.1Long-Term Debt of Largest 10 CVP Irrigation Water Contractors in the San

Joaquin Valley FY 2005-2006

District

OutstandingDebt at End of

YearPercentageof Top Ten

ConstructionFinanced byU.S. or State

Percentageof Top Ten

Arvin-Edison Water StorageDistrict $ 10,213,542 4.0% $ 4,090,485 6.0%

Chowchilla Water District

Del Puerto Water District $ 3,456,811 5.1%

Delano-Earlimart IrrigationDistrict $ 1,871,392 0.7%

Lower Tule River IrrigationDistrict $ 304,999 0.1%

Madera Irrigation District $ 47,920,000 18.7% $ 1,952,114 2.9%

San Luis Water District $ 2,967,500 1.2% $ 4,191,548 6.2%

South San Joaquin MunicipalUtility District

Tulare Irrigation District $ 3,055,015 1.2%

Westlands Water District $ 189,991,829 74.1% $ 54,348,623 79.9%

Total $ 253,356,777 100.0% $ 65,171,190 100.0%



ENTRIX, Inc. 27

Table A.2Allocated Capital Costs and Repayment of the Largest Ten CVP Irrigation

Water Contractors in the San Joaquin Valley 2007

DistrictAllocated

Capital CostRepayment as of

9/30/06 (Sch A-6A)Net Capital

Cost

Percentageof Net

Capital Cost

Westlands Water District $447,921,861 $ 74,148,394 $ 373,773,467 59.7%

Arvin-Edison Water StorageDistrict $ 32,862,312 $ 8,267,858 $ 24,594,454 3.9%

Madera Irrigation District $ 42,386,719 $ 8,575,035 $ 33,811,684 5.4%

Lower Tule River IrrigationDistrict $ 38,333,059 $ 10,798,913 $ 27,534,146 4.4%

Delano-Earlimart IrrigationDistrict $ 40,838,450 $ 11,599,444 $ 29,239,005 4.7%

Chowchilla Water District $ 31,019,003 $ 7,338,017 $ 23,680,986 3.8%

South San Joaquin MUD $ 35,624,145 $ 8,828,360 $ 26,795,785 4.3%

Tulare Irrigation District $ 18,893,365 $ 5,850,718 $ 13,042,648 2.1%

Del Puerto Water District $ 33,039,984 $ 6,121,005 $ 26,918,979 4.3%

San Luis Water District $ 48,905,753 $ 2,544,553 $ 46,361,200 7.4%

Total Top Ten $769,824,651 $ 144,072,297 $ 625,752,354 100.0%

Source: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Regional Office, “CentralValley Project Schedule of Irrigation Capital Allocation by Contractor, 2008 Irrigation Water Rates.” IrrigationSchedule A-2Bb (accessed July 17, 2008).



ENTRIX, Inc. 28

Table A.3Westlands Water District Financial Statement FY 1998-99 to FY 2005-06

Average AnnualAmount

Average AnnualPercentage of Total

Percent ChangeFY 98-99-05-06

Operating Revenues

Water Sales

Industrial $ 9,586,418 1.9% 90.1%

Irrigation $ 487,848,384 94.3% 65.2%

All Other Sales $ 3,257,597 0.6% -45.2%

Water Services $ 16,376,441 3.2% -7.7%

Total Operating Revenues $ 517,068,840 100.0% 6.31%

Operating Expenses

Source of Supply $ 390,966,049 72.3% 65.2%

Pumping $ 2,113,743 0.4% 56.5%

Administration and General $ 47,181,556 8.7% 68.1%

Customer Accounts $ 13,381,334 2.5% 21.5%

Transmission and Distribution $ 51,964,826 9.6% -5.2%

Depreciation and Amortization $ 34,079,372 6.3% 137.8%

Other Operating Expenses $ 1,246,118 0.2% -96.9%

Total Operating Expenses $ 540,932,998 100.0% 62.2%

Operating Income (Loss) $ (23,864,158) 46.9%


Interest Income $ 15,820,246 17.5% 198.2%

Property Assessments $ 52,939,295 58.5% 351.1%

Intergovernmental

Federal $ 199,000 0.2%

Other GovernmentAgencies $ 5,483,967 6.1%

Other Non-Operating Revenues $ 16,050,743 17.7% -81.6%

Total Non-Operating Revenues $ 90,493,251 100.0% 139.1%


Interest Expenses $ 33,280,131 98.1% 3,270.7%

Other Non-Operating Expenses $ 657,653 1.9% -100.0

Total Non-Operating Expenses $ 33,937,784 100.0% 2,109.7%

Non-Operating Income (Loss) $ 56,555,467 3.5%

Net Income (Loss) $ 32,661,104 100.0% -41.9%



ENTRIX, Inc. 29

Table A.4Arvin-Edison Water Storage District Financial Statement FY 1998-99 to FY 2005-06


Average AnnualPercentage of Total


Operating Revenues

Water Sales

Industrial $ 1,666,892 1.4% -90.1%

Irrigation $ 64,687,499 55.0% 39.7%

All Other Sales $ 1,471,570 1.3% 30.5%

Water Services $ 49,770,445 42.3% -77.5%

Total Operating Revenues $117,596,406 100.0% 20.2%

Operating Expenses

Source of Supply $ 63,895,686 46.4% 115.3%

Pumping $ 8,012,398 5.8% 118.3%



Transmission and Distribution $ 35,130,677 25.5% 214.6%


Other Operating Expenses $ 866,463 0.6% 0.0%

Total Operating Expenses $137,759,571 100.0% 135.6%

Operating Income (Loss) $ (20,163,165) -241.8%


Interest Income $ 9,054,317 23.3% -68.1%

Rents, Leases, and Franchises $ 40,000 0.1% -100.0


Intergovernmental

Other Agencies $ 8,002,002 20.6% 0%

Other Non-Operating Revenues $ 4,690,560 12.1% 189.1%

Total Non-Operating Revenues $ 38,920,661 100.0% -18.5%


Interest Expenses $ 783,563 30.4% 2,939.0%

Other Non-Operating Expenses $ 1,793,245 69.6% -100.0%

Total Non-Operating Expenses $ 2,576,808 100.0% 2752.4%

Non-Operating Income (Loss) $ 36,343,853 -12.5%

Net Income (Loss) $ 16,180,688 -144.8%



ENTRIX, Inc. 30

Table A.5Madera Irrigation District Financial Statement FY 1998-99 to FY 2005-06


Average AnnualPercentage


Operating Revenues

Water Sales

Industrial $ 41,100 0.1% 127.0%Irrigation $ 37,369,076 58.9% 115.3%

Sales for Resale $ 2,002,146 3.2%

Water Services $ 24,025,463 37.9% 118.8%


Operating Expenses

Source of Supply $ 40,194,424 51.3% 43.3%




Other Operating Expenses $ 2,951,712 3.8%




Interest Income $ 1,713,706 10.9% -4.2%

Rents, Leases, and Franchises $ 301,877 1.9% 523.8%

Current Secured and UnsecuredDebt (1%) $ 357,550 2.3%

Voter Approved Taxes $ 486,513 3.1%

Property Assessments $ 8,772,771 55.8% -100.0%

Intergovernmental

Federal $ 664,088 4.2%

State $ 112,039 0.7%

Other Agencies $ 726,653 4.6%


Total Non-Operating Revenues $ 15,722,503 100.0% -69.1%Non-Operating Expenses

Interest Expenses $ 512,668 66.6% 2509.2%

Other Non-Operating Expenses $ 256,836 33.4% 51.0%

Total Non-Operating Expenses $ 769,504 100.0% 3256.9%


Net Income (Loss) $ 13,480 100.0% -88.6%



ENTRIX, Inc. 31

Table A.6Lower Tule River Irrigation District Financial Statement FY 1998-99 to 2005-06




Operating Revenues

Water Sales

Irrigation $ 39,980,993 86.1% 209.6%Sales for Resale $ 665,736 1.4%

All Other Sales $ 517,712 1.1% -100.0%

Water Services $ 5,246,910 11.3% -17.4%


Operating Expenses

Source of Supply $ 41,335,354 69.1% 149.9%







Interest Income $ 1,133,421 6.7% -69.1%

Rents, Leases, and Franchises $ 2,502 0.0% -100.0%


Voter Approved Taxes $ 138,798 0.8%Property Assessments $ 14,670,486 86.2% -0.2%

Prior Year and Penalties $ 108,973 0.6%

Intergovernmental

State $ 10,792 0.1%


Other Non-Operating Revenues $ 118,354 0.7% 109.0%




Other Non-Operating Expenses $ 703,974 86.4% -100.0%

Total Non-Operating Expenses $ 814,892 100.0% -96.8%


Net Income (Loss) $ 2,777,965 100.0% 1919.3%



ENTRIX, Inc. 32

Table A.7Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District Financial Statement FY 1998-99 to 2005-06




Operating Revenues

Water Sales

Irrigation $ 34,087,018 58.9% 117.0%All Other Sales $ 4,548,255 7.9% -69.4%

Water Services $ 19,214,653 33.2% 454.3%


Operating Expenses

Source of Supply $ 46,759,214 76.5% 165.4%

Pumping $ 1,163,697 1.9%



Depreciation and Amortization $ 799,733 1.3% 223.0%





Interest Income $ 2,868,710 29.2% -29.6%

Rents, Leases, and Franchises $ 8,600 0.1%


Intergovernmental

State $ 99,517 1.0%







Total Non-Operating Expenses $ 567,680 100.0% 284.2%


Net Income (Loss) $ 5,954,974 100.0% 20.1%



ENTRIX, Inc. 33

Table A.8Chowchilla Water District Financial Statement FY 1998-99 to FY 2005-06




Operating Revenues

Water Sales

Irrigation $ 29,869,962 98.4% 57.4%Sales for Resale $ 121,999 0.4%

All Other Sales $ 270,753 0.9%

Water Services $ 81,448 0.3%


Operating Expenses

Source of Supply $ 31,039,087 64.6% 196.4%




Depreciation and Amortization $ 1,782,411 3.7% -9.8%

Other Operating Expenses $ 58,898


Operating Income (Loss) $ (17,707,247) 615.4%


Interest Income $ 1,802,477 8.7% -57.5%





Intergovernmental

State $ 9,122 0.0%


Other Non-Operating Revenues $ 1,682,103 8.1%


Non-Operating ExpensesInterest Expenses $ 4,035 0.3%


Total Non-Operating Expenses $ 1,503,464 -100.0%


Net Income (Loss) $ 1,461,007 100.0% -41.0%



ENTRIX, Inc. 34

Table A.9Southern San Joaquin Municipal Utility District Financial Statement FY 1998-99 to

2005-06




Operating Revenues

Water Sales

Irrigation $ 39,056,500 68.0% 47.7%

Water Services $ 18,338,374 32.0% 37.1%


Operating Expenses

Source of Supply $ 37,498,738 63.8% 96.9%

Pumping $ 7,458,532 12.7% 141.1%




Other Operating Expenses $ 9,214 0.0%




Interest Income $ 1,205,040 16.8% 46.6%

Rents, Leases, and Franchises $ 52,159 0.7% 16.7%

Current Secured and UnsecuredDebt (1%) $ 1,799,623 25.0% -76.9%


Property Assessments $ 372,837 5.2%


Intergovernmental

State $ 49,808 0.7%




Interest Expenses




Net Income (Loss) $ 5,761,068 -36.5%



ENTRIX, Inc. 35

Table A.10Tulare Irrigation District Financial Statement FY 1998-99 to 2005-06




Operating Revenues

Water Sales

Irrigation $ 21,595,935 74.3% 198.5%Sales for Resale 0.0%

All Other Sales $ 1,587,775 5.5%

Water Services $ 5,890,621 20.3% 1172.9%


Operating Expenses

Source of Supply $ 18,220,224 38.3% 160.0%

Pumping $ 10,982 0.0%








Interest Income $ 9,977,477 26.1% -89.8%


Current Secured and UnsecuredDebt (1%) $ 783,252 2.0% -86.8%




Intergovernmental

State $ 17,651 0.0%



Non-Operating ExpensesInterest Expenses $ 1,155,772 31.8% -39.7%


Total Non-Operating Expenses $ 3,628,815 100.0% -31.1%


Net Income (Loss) $ 16,154,933 -55.1%



ENTRIX, Inc. 36

Table A.11Del Puerto Water District Financial Statement FY 1998-99 to 2005-06




Operating Revenues

Water Sales

Irrigation $ 27,584,412 87.1% 1.8%Water Services $ 4,094,483 12.9% -0.7%


Operating Expenses

Source of Supply $ 24,077,835 85.0% 59.6%


Depreciation and Amortization $ 54,200 0.2% 480.1%


Operating Income (Loss) $ 3,342,353 -103.3%


Interest Income $ 1,210,199 83.8% 4.1%


Other Non-Operating Revenues $ 229,069 15.9% 408.6%






Non-Operating Income (Loss) $ 969,736 160.8%

Net Income (Loss) $ 4,312,089 100.0% -94.2%



ENTRIX, Inc. 37

Table A.12San Luis Water District Financial Statement FY 1998-99 to 2005-06



Percent Change FY98-99-05-06

Operating Revenues

Water Sales

Industrial $ 418,035 0.7% 190.9%

Irrigation $ 48,177,637 83.0% 26.6%

Water Services $ 9,417,500 16.2% 9.3%


Operating Expenses

Source of Supply $ 33,770,084 62.4% 41.8%

Pumping $ 466,644 0.9 378.3

Water Treatment $ 126,918 0.2 -100.0Administration and General $ 7,626,044 14.1% -28.3%




Operating Income (Loss) $ 3,908,755 -360.7%


Interest Income $ 5,531,380 24.2% 20.5%


Voter Approved Taxes $ 28,884 0.1% -100.0%


Intergovernmental

State $ 432


Total Non-OperatingRevenues $ 22,835,254 -51.5%


Interest Expenses $ 5,105,466 70.3% -38.8%


Total Non-Operating Expenses $ 7,264,166 100.0% -7.8%


Net Income (Loss) $ 16,912,987 -3.8%

financial statement analysis cvp contractors

Documents